Speech And Language Case History: Fill & Download for Free

I hope you have already consulted doc,if not please take her to physician.The problem depends on various factors like her chronological age(current age of the child), age of language acqisition, the type of seizures , the duration of seizures, number of episodes of seizures, her motor development, speech and language development , medical issues, birth history and lot more ..If I consider seizures alone, it can lead to deterioration of speech ,again it also depends on type, duration, and severity of seizures. Due to seizures the child's normal development is affected. And child looses the language of had acquired before seizures.If its case of childhood aphasia , obviously there is language lossHence a detailed evaluation of speech and language along with medical issues that is present should be looked upon.

I've evaluated children in their homes, an outpatient speech-language therapy department at a hospital, and at schools. Some of the details vary from place to place, but here's a general description of how it all works.Hearing Screening. This might be done as part of the speech and language evaluation or separately. It is always recommended to check hearing whenever there is a concern about a child's speech and language development.Case History/Background Information. There is usually a form for parents to fill out ahead of time. These can be pretty detailed and will ask about the child's development and health history going all the way back to the pregnancy. As a parent, I sometimes get a little annoyed by forms by this, but as a professional, I really do appreciate it when parents take the time to fill them out as completely as possible. The information on these forms is helpful and important.Parent Interview. This is a time to go over the information provided in the case history form, find out the parent's concerns and reason for the evaluation.Informal observation and assessment. This will probably just look like playing, but anytime an SLP (speech-language pathologist) is interacting with a child, they are assessing the child's communication and social skills. Does the child respond to greetings? How does he ask for an item that he wants? How does he indicate that he likes or doesn't like something? How does he ask for more? Is he able to identify objects and body parts? Is he pointing and grunting, or using words? Does he answer yes/no questions? Can he follow simple directions? The SLP will probably set up some situations to try to elicit specific types of responses, such as withholding a piece of a toy that the child is building. The parent might also be participating in this part of the evaluation, especially if the child is very young or shy.The SLP will look at the child's oral structures and their functions. This can include tasks such as sticking out the tongue and moving it in different directions, pushing against a tongue depressor, alternating between a smile and a kissy-face, blowing bubbles, and so on. Sometimes it can also include having a snack and a drink.Formal/standardized assessment. Depending on the child's age and the nature of the concerns, the SLP will choose one or more appropriate formal tests to use. For every young children, this will be more of a checklist of skills and behaviors. The SLP will try to elicit those behaviors during play and will also ask the parent if they have seen their child doing them at home. Other tests will include more structured activities, such as naming or pointing to pictures, or retelling a story. The tasks get more complex for older children.Speech and language evaluations with young children are so much fun. I've always enjoyed them. They are almost always fun for the child as well. Young kids think they are just meeting a nice person who wants to play with them. Even if they are a little shy, most of them don't take very long to warm up to the SLP.

Because we have the First Amendment to provide protections for both freedom of speech and of the press.(Honestly, don’t they teach kids anything anymore?)The Constitution prevents the government from censorship of matter before its publication.Prior restraint - WikipediaNixon attempted this kind of shenanigans against the New York Times to keep them from publishing the Pentagon Papers. The Supreme Court struck down this action in the following case, 6–3:New York Times Co. v. United States - WikipediaJustice Black delivered this amazing opening paragraphs in the opinion of the court:I adhere to the view that the Government's case against the Washington Post should have been dismissed, and that the injunction against the New York Times should have been vacated without oral argument when the cases were first presented to this Court. I believe that every moment's continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment. Furthermore, after oral argument, I agree completely that we must affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the reasons stated by my Brothers DOUGLAS and BRENNAN. In my view, it is unfortunate that some of my Brethren are apparently willing to hold that the publication of news may sometimes be enjoined. Such a holding would make a shambles of the First Amendment.Our Government was launched in 1789 with the adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, followed in 1791. Now, for the first time in the 182 years since the founding of the Republic, the federal courts are asked to hold that the First Amendment does not mean what it says, but rather means that the Government can halt the publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country.In seeking injunctions against these newspapers, and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms.They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge. Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment in three parts, two of which are set out below, and one of which proclaimed:The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments, and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.(Emphasis added.) The amendments were offered to curtail and restrict the general powers granted to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches two years before in the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people's freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly. Yet the Solicitor General argues and some members of the Court appear to agree that the general powers of the Government adopted in the original Constitution should be interpreted to limit and restrict the specific and emphatic guarantees of the Bill of Rights adopted later. I can imagine no greater perversion of history. Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment, able men that they were, wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press. . . ." Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.In other words, “no.” In fact, not just “no,” but “hell no.”(Emphasis in bold above was added by myself.)New York Times Co. v. United States